Skip to main content
6:00 am
i'm really sad. it's truly a loss for our city. but i'm so grateful that i had an opportunity to work with him and to get to know him. >> the clerk: thank you, supervisor kim. supervisor mar. >> supervisor mar: i wanted to add on to the restroomance remes well. he always was reaching out to build solidarity, not just with the labor movement but with the antiwar movement and the lgbt communities as well. he was an incredible person. i wanted to thank his former seiu local 250 ac activist colleagues kathy lip scom for watching out for him so long but other activists like tab, eileen, his susan, carl, and the whole pride at work community for really making sure he was
6:01 am
cared for in his last days as well. i wanted to say that i had tremendous respect for him as an organizer but especially as a person with a long view of movement building. and i wanted÷apx? to ask if i cd also be added on the in memoriamium for howard but also for farley. he had a wonderful memorial last night in the green money. listens of 91.7 fm and the staff and all the volunteers from that great radio station as well. thank you. >> clerk calvillo: thank you, supervisor mar. mr. president, seeing no other names on the roster that concludes roll call for introductions. >> president chiu: colleagues, why don't we recall supervisor olague's item which is item 16. madam clerk, did you call that item? >> clerk calvillo: yes, mr. president. it is now on the floor. >> president chiu: supervisor olague. >> supervisor olague: there were a few -- this is introduced a couple of times, and then we
6:02 am
continued it because there were some issues that were outstanding, and so i'll just go ahead and mention how some of those were resolved. the first thing, the issue of defining when planning staff reports are required to include the dashboard has basically been settled. so the changes are on page 4, line 24. and it mentions they will outline staff reports to the planning commission historic preservation commission and the board of supervisors so that's kind of stated there, on all proposed projects, it mentions it in detail. also, there was this -- the big dispute was really about the naming -- or defining of housing above 120% or from 120 to dj), . some -- i believe that it's the planning department, i might be wrong, that defines it as middle
6:03 am
income housing, but it's the -- what do you call it -- the mayor's office on housing that defines it as upper middle income housing. phrasing so i just removed it altogether, and just wanted to make sure that it was included in the reporting. and mentioned instead that including data on household 150%. descriptions based on sponsor's disloars of unit pricing for market rate housing proposals and we were going to add additional language, and other available data to that. so rather than define it,xpihélt remove that. >> president chiu: supervisor
6:04 am
olague, just so i'm clear, the version that you sent out did not include -- so you're going to add that to your amendment. >> supervisor olague: yeah. >> president chiu: thank you. >> supervisor olague: and then of mentions that. pricing disclosure by pricing sponsors as basis of the data to 150% ami. planning department -- below 120% but has formula to create a to 150%. the planning department is here in case you need to correct me or clarify something. feel free. the -- reporting is to identify actual numbers based on a percentage of last year's total. i believe the the methodology to determine the 120 to 150% area
6:05 am
median income warrants its own policy discussion which i don't of i won't be around to participate in but the board might look at this discussion in the feature. it might be worthy more at land use or something. however until that longer discussion occurs i propose we should keep the legislation as is, reporting actual numbers. so that kind of sums up some of the amendments that were added tîñ÷ this. >> president chiu: supervisor olague has made the possession to amend as described. is there a second? seconded by supervisor kim. any discussion? supervisor kim. >> supervisor kim: not on the motion to amend. >> president chiu: on the motion to amend, supervisor wiener. >> supervisor wiener: i just i -- everything supervisor olague just said. us? >> supervisor olague: yes, with the exception of just a few words. >> supervisor wiener: so then is that on line 6 and line 17 of page 5, the addition of, and
6:06 am
other available data? >> supervisor olague: yeah, we wanted1!jpéuz discuss that with- >> supervisor wiener: so it will say based on sponsor's market rate housing proposal and other available data in both locations. >> supervisor olague: yeah. >> supervisor wiener: i appreciate that. >> supervisor olague: it was the upper moderate income housing was the way that -- >> supervisor wiener: thank you. amendment because of the -- most of the amendment is fine. i will not be supporting this because of the deletion of, quote, middle income households, in other words stating that 120 to 150% of ami is middle income households. actually i have to say i find that aspect of the amendment to be pretty extraordinary. and i'm shocked that the amendment's even being offered today. just about a month ago, this board voted unanimously to
6:07 am
accept an amendment that's -- among other things, that 120 to 150% of area median income is middle class. there's no reason to remove it and i don't know why it's being proposed for removal. on the merits, 120% to 150% of area median income is middle class. and i don't know why that would be questioned. we are struggling to keep our middle class in san francisco. we're losing ground in terms of our middle class leaving because of the cost of housing and other issues and we need to turn that around. one of the reasons a month ago why i offered the amendments i did was to make sure we were tracking housing production, not just of low income but in addition, middle income as well. the last thing we as a board should be doing is to start signaling that people who are in the middle class are actually in the upper middle class or
6:08 am
wealthy, whatever it is that a signal by accepting this amendment. what is 120 to 150%, in terms of dollar amounts. a two person household making 98,900 a year is at 120% of ami. a two person household making 123,000 is 150% of ami. category? two san francisco unified school district teachers with five years of service and bachelor's degrees are at 120% of ami. so two pretty junior teachers living together are in this 120 to 150 range of ami. now, we can talk about the building trades, and the
6:09 am
carpenters, et cetera, who fall -- two of them are living together, would fall into 120% now let's look at the upper end of a four-person household, 120 to 150% of ami for a four-person hoastled, let's say two parents, two kids is 123 to 154,000 of ami. as i mentioned the last time this came up speaker john pérez has proposed and i think he's proposing again and he should propose it that for anyone in california with a family where the household is making up to 150,000 a year, that family would get a middle class reduction in to -- from our state universities. john pérez, one of the leading democrats in the state, has indicated that 150% of ami throughout california, even though it's cheaper to live elsewhere qualifies as a middle
6:10 am
class. why would we ever say that these people, two teachers living together, two carpenters living together aren't in the middle class and that we're somehow unwilling to acknowledge that's the middle class. i don't understand that rationale and it sends a terrible message. now let's also look at how san francisco defines middle class. supervisor olague stated that the planning department says the middle class is 120 to 150% ami. it's not the planning department it's the housing element and the planning code. housing at 180% of af mi and above and defines middle class income housing as housing affordable to households making between 120 and 150% of median income. then we look at planning code section 4001 which defines middle income household as a household whose combined annual gross income for all members is between 120% and 150% of the
6:11 am
local median income. so as a matter of policy, and as a matter of law, in san francisco, 120 toñjp 150% of area median income is middle class. so why on earth would anyone would try to strip out the reference to that income range6 as being middle class is something that i don't really understand. i also do not think that the mayor's office of housing has indicated that 120 to 150% of ami is upper middle income housing. when i did a hearing earlier this year about middle class housing there was a particular mayor's office office of housing, as upper income housing. they did not do that and its presentation never indicated that, and to do that would have been i think inaccurate. colleagues it is clear that 120 to 150% of ami is middle income
6:12 am
housing we should not be string this out and send that terrible message to the people of san francisco. >> president chiu: supervisor olague -- and before you respond, supervisor olague, our clerk wanted to clarify that the additional language of or other available data you will make that amendment to all references where it refers to data on households earning approximately 120 to 150%. >> supervisor olague: yes. >> president chiu: okay. so hopefully that's clear to our city attorney. supervisor olague. >> supervisor olague: basically, i think what's important is that the reporting and the analysis capture 120 to 150. originally, the reporting was only going to go up to 120 because that is kind of the standard -- the bar that's set i then, you know, there was an
6:13 am
amendment proposed to increase it to 150, which i don't think there was any disputing that any debate. i think yeah, we agreed, it should be included in there. but there still seemed to be some -- i don't know if disagreement is the right word. there seems to be some semantics going on here around, you know, is it upper moderate income housing, which is what my understanding was, that mayor's office on housing tends to refer and then you have planning that sort of has a different way of -- a different language that they use. rather than getting caught up in that semantics debate i just ja4ted to make sure that the intent of the amendment was captured which is to include 120 to 150, which wasn't originally this reporting. and then hopefully there will be a time when advocates and this
6:14 am
board, land use committee, or planning and moh can come to some kind of consensus to define that housing between 120 and 150. so i think the fact that we're including it is some kind of acknowledgement that in fact this does include middle income because of, you know, some of the way it's been viewedm 4t regionally and there seems to be, in my mind, some -- still i'd just rather than-d you know, remove it, just kind of not include the name for now, and then maybe come back to that at a later time when there's more time for discussion. that's all. >> president chiu: supervisor kim. >> supervisor kim: thank you. amendment. i'm familiar but i just want
6:15 am
to -- >> supervisor olague: i thought it was going to be distributed. >> supervisor kim: if someone can give me a copy that will be great. i'll say a couple of things. you know, i was hesitant a couple of weeks ago about including 120 to 150, not because i don't think we should calculate it but i was curious as to how we would calculate it. when we build housing for 120 and below there are mechanisms where developers are required to build at this rate and their actual set kind of guidelines on how that's done. so i think the second amendment, asking developers to kind of prenotice -- i'm sorry, i don't have the language in fronts of me. i think that's important. as to how it's defined, as someone who resides in the 120 to 150ami as we do in this chambers, i don't know how important it is how we define iz as much that we collect that data when we can. my understanding is that the reason why we're doing this is that 80 to 120 is defined as
6:16 am
moderate income -- i'm sorry 80 to 120 is defined as moderate income. it just doesn't follow on the scale. so that's why the suggestion came before us. instead of going from moderate income to middle class that it go from moderate income to above moderate, however we want to define it, it is a need that we need to build more housing for 120 to 150. i'm curious as to how we as a city are meeting those goals. we, the city don't build 120 to 150 but it's dependent upon our developers to showcase when that need is being met through developments that come before us. >> clerk calvillo: mr. president, to supervisor kim, we handed out a document to each supervisor and we will make you another copy. now. thank you. >> the clerk: very good. >> president chiu: supervisor wiener5ejrxí. >> supervisor wiener: thank you.
6:17 am
obviously, we have to make -- we're going to have to make some estimates and do an analysis and the planning department is capable of doing that to come up with the 120 to 150% of ami. but it's very important that we do it. and you know, i don't think that this is just semantics. as i just read quotes, that this in san francisco, the middle income housing orcpye middle i. and the housing element and the planning( b%ú codes.1 k8 so no one is making up a random phrase or arbitrarily putting this label on. this is how we define it. again i think it is sending a that we're not going to -- we're say that -- say two teachers living together in a household are not really middle income. we just don't feel comfortable
6:18 am
referring to them as middle income. i think it sends a very bad message. colleagues i suggest that we reject this amendment or at least that portion of the vote. >> president chiu: any further discussion? okay. amendment. >> clerk calvillo: supervisor avalos, aye. supervisor campos, aye. supervisor campos, aye. president chiu,> elsbernd, no. supervisor farrell, no. supervisor kim, aye. supervisor mar, aye. supervisor wiener, no. there are seven ayes and four nos. >> president chiu: the motion passes. unless there's further discussion why don'thtp we takea roll call vote on the underlying ordinance as amended. supervisor wiener. >> supervisor wiener: thank you, mr. president.
6:19 am
i did vote against this legislation in committee originally because it only focused on low and very low income housing and moderate income housing as part of the dashboard. and in terms -- we then adopted amendments that i had proposed a month ago to expand dashboard to encompass more of our housing needs and i was happy to -- in the past despite the -- i think mistake that this board just made in removing the words middle class. i think in my view the dashboard is now going to serve a good purpose, in terms of looking at our broad housing needs, as we approve projects. so i will be supporting the overall legislation. >> president chiu: supervisor kim. >> supervisor kim: i'll just be brief. as a cosponsor of the dashboard legislation i'm incredibly excited that we are finally bringing this to pass. as we get developments we often
6:20 am
evaluate them in a vacuum and don't have a good sense of what's being built in the city and debate what are we building for and we come up with our own projection debate by debate but this dashboard will be helpful in really giving us pinpoints as to where the city isaqj)e at in complying with our 2009 housing element. so i just want to thank supervisor olague for her work. this is something she has taken on since she was commissioner. i also want to recognize supervisor campos. we had called for a hearing on this very issue earlier this year and one of the recommendations that came out of this hearing was of course a dashboard to better understanding housing production needs at various income levels and to understand the source of funds available for affordable housing at the federal state and local level so we can begin to have a discussion about solutions on how to close this production gap. c, this dashboard will assist in helping us to prioritize funds
6:21 am
that we just passed at the ballot and i want to appreciate our voters for passing both prop c andms( e. they will be incredibly important in serving as a source of funding for affordable housing in san francisco. >> president chiu: supervisor campos. >> supervisor campos: thank you, mr. president. i'll trying not to repeat what has been said. this is definitely a long time coming, and i want to thank supervisor olague for -- and her office for all the work that has gone into this piece of legislation. i think it's appropriate that ultimately this is somethingo[j that she was the main author of, and i think it's going to be a tool that's going to be useful for many, many years to come. i want to thank supervisor kim and her staff for their work as well in pushing this item sheila, who in many respects this kind of started with the study review that we had passed
6:22 am
the budget and legislative analyst to conduct of our affordable housing strategies. so i want to because this is one of their recommendations that came out of that study. and i think that the discussion by all the colleagues made this better, and you know this is the kind of tool that we probably may need to tweak as we move especially after the passage of prop c, makes this really important. so thank youí$( [ all. >> president chiu: any further discussion? roll call vote on the underlying ordinance as amended. >> clerk calvillo: on item 16 as amended, supervisor avalos, aye. supervisor campos, aye. president chiu, aye. supervisor chu, aye. supervisor cohen, aye. supervisor elsbernd, aye. supervisor farrell, aye. supervisor kim, aye.
6:23 am
supervisor mar, aye. supervisor olague, aye. supervisor wiener, aye. there arexjsm 11zpihpç ayes. >> president chiu: the ordinance is passed on the first reading as amended. colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, why don't we go to general public comment. >> clerk calvillo: now is the opportunity for the public to comment generally for up to two minutesfd z6 on items within the subject matter jurisdiction of the board including the policy discussion between mayor8ípp ed( lee and mrs of the board and members on the adoption without reference to committee calendar. please note public comment is not allowed on items which have been subject to public comment by a board committee. speakers using translation will be allowed twice the amount of time to testify. if you would like a document to be displayed on the overhead projector state such and remove the document when the screen returns to live coverage of the meeting. >> president chiu: why don't we hear from our first speaker, two minutes please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. stop the corporate rape of our public library, don't give money to the friends of the library,
6:24 am
don't accept money from the friends of the library. we have mentioned accountability and democracy go together. we have now reached the point where jewel goams i gomez is a noun to mean -- i have mentioned several times the president of the library commission violated rights to make public comment and sunshine task force found it a -- violation. the agents commission investigation found the conduct falls below standard of decency, good faith and right action impliedly required of all public officials and ethics unanimously found a finding of official misconduct. we may asy%(! wellç(j@ñ listene gomez voice on the website one more time. >> (tape playing but not
6:25 am
intelligible). >> recently -- this board of supervisors ont/jaq
6:26 am
>> president chiu: next speaker. speaker. >> my name is deborahg5 on two different subjects, briefly, the nudity ban. i will just say that one of the factors that should also be considered in addition to the resources of the police being concerned with nudity, there is a federal lawsuit -- >> president chiu: excuse me, ma'am. we have a rule in the board chamber that once we have considered an item in committee with public comment, that that public comment's not allowed at a subsequent full board meeting. so you're welcome to talk about anything else except for that topic which we've already discussed and debated. >> am i allowed to talk about the decision relatedpxv to the >> president chiu: again that we've considered and housing for broadly and
6:27 am
civil rights more broadly. >> i will use an analogy. i was raised in the country. elephant needed to have a pen, and also a stable, you would ask someone where can i get these facilities. you certainly wouldn't expect that person to direct you to a beehive. and a beehive is where worker bees live. and a stable is where you have larger groups of people that could possibly be there. and since, you know, it's been decided that, you know, oftentimes elephants can't live in beehives, that i suggest that perhaps a beehive isn't as valuable to a city that needs an elephant pen. thank you. >> president chiu: thank you.
6:28 am
>> i'm going to be using the overhead. this is my son. can i use the overhead? >> president chiu: sfgov-tv. august 14, 2006. i just want to sayç&%( [ that we talking about violence versus nudity. i'm not bringing that up. "k about my child seeing nudity, but i'm worried about them seeing guns and i'm also -- we can continue -- we continue to be ignored as mothers and fathers. every year, every day, every holiday, every birthday, we are ignored. i come here all the time, and we
6:29 am
continue to be ignored. we have -- we also have help -- i'm talking about when you say you want to help us, how could you help us help color, especially african-americans, and i say also, how can you help us and you -- i'm sorry, and i wrote it down -- help us do something for us, without us. and we talk about districts. our district -- yes, our our children's aren't. districts aren't human. our loved ones are. and i say that because i want to hold these pictures up,ò( !6 od ones that have been mufwh%(r homicide. what do we do about these loved ones. wel of them.

November 23, 2012 6:00am-6:30am PST

TOPIC FREQUENCY Chiu 24, San Francisco 7, Ami 6, Campos 6, Wiener 3, Elsbernd 2, John PÉrez 2, Mar 2, Farrell 2, Kim 2, Avalos 2, Ross Mirkarimi 2, California 2, Eileen 1, Category 1, Carl 1, Our City 1, Hoastled 1, Seiu 1, Farley 1
Network SFGTV
Duration 00:30:00
Scanned in San Francisco, CA, USA
Source Comcast Cable
Tuner Channel 89 (615 MHz)
Video Codec mpeg2video
Audio Cocec ac3
Pixel width 528
Pixel height 480
Sponsor Internet Archive
Audio/Visual sound, color